Showing posts with label European Parliament. Show all posts
Showing posts with label European Parliament. Show all posts

Saturday, April 9

Designed for failure: A critique of the Common Fisheries Policy of the European Union

You might wonder why a banker is talking about fish? Well, there are many reasons, not least that I am a Bengali and fish is in my blood or fishy blood or bloody fish, but anyway, you get what I mean. Fish is integral to my culture :). But that’s the jokey reason, i am interested in fish because it is a crucial part of the world’s economic, political and environmental system. If you do not manage your fish stocks properly, you WILL get into trouble because unemployment in a vital sector will plunge, nutrition across the wider population will be impacted, the upstream and downstream impacts of lack of fish is huge, and so on and so forth. Being in a bank unfortunately guarantees that every problem will ultimately impact the banking system in some shape or form. Whether its to do with corporate funding, interest rates, bankruptcies, you name it, a bank has to handle it.

One would have expected that a supranational body like the EU, which was original designed for making sure that the Coal and Steel production in the core European Union countries was coordinated, could have handled something like the fish stocks in the EU? After all, the Europeans have been fishing for thousands of years, much longer than they have been making steel. But no. This paper bluntly puts in clear terms, the reasons why the European Union has spectacularly failed in managing its fish stocks via the Common Fisheries Policy and has inexorably lead to overfishing, massive unemployment in so many fishing communities around Europe, huge subsidy bills and basically screwed up the sea environment. So what were the issues?

1. Biological Issues: Every year, the scientists propose a sustainable level of fish stocks based upon a rather clear mathematical model based upon unexploited stock size, the maximum economic yield, the maximum sustainable yield and a precautionary lower biomass limit. Based upon this model, you know how much fish to catch. There are other factors such as when do juvenile fish become adults and start spawning, how many times do you want the fish to spawn before being caught, etc. Guess what? the European Commission and the Council of Ministers usually agree a limit circa 50% higher than what the scientists propose. Hmmm, that really helps guys.

2. Economic Issues: Fish stocks suffer from the problem of common goods, everybody owns fish and nobody owns them at the same time. Its like common pasture grounds where everybody can graze their cows but nobody has to take responsibility for the pasture. So individual motivation is to overfish and thus have overcapacity. If you provide fishing quotas to fishermen, which is comparatively economically efficient (even if you consider the 50% over permissioning from above), it still doesnt work efficiently as monopolies can form, quotas dont really address the issue of the catch size itself and finally this doesnt apply to fishermen from outside the political structure. Not much can be done about Japanese fishermen fishing off the economic zones in Europe, can you? And who will validate once the fishing boat lands up in a Japanese port? not the EU authorities anyway. In the EU’s case, subsidies have been given for developing boats, subsidising fuel, and so on and so forth. Totally distorted economic market in Europe.

3. Legal Issues: You have to have ONE regulatory / legal body to handle issues such as this. But no, the whole panoply of rules, regulations, decrees, courts, councils, and and and is just complex, non transparent, riddled with inefficiencies, cannot enforce suitably, and so on and so forth.

4. Political Issues: The fisheries ministers in the respective EU nations are not judged on the basis of how well they manage fish stocks on an European wide basis but on how much quota they manage to get for their own constituents. There is no minister representing the poor fish, see? So everybody goes about raping the fish and devil take the hindmost. Also because this is a slow decline, politicians do not take responsibility as they will be long gone by the time the populations actually collapse. Due to different election timelines, there is no consistent policy making either. Consequently, the European Fisheries policy frequently reduces to the lowest common denominator.

These are just few of the issues that we are facing. Looking at how the EU actually handled something that was huge and crucial such as the Bosnian Crisis, the Kosovo Crisis or even the Greek Debt Crisis, I am not sanguine how it will handle a situation like this with the fish stocks, but still, some attempts need to be made to address this problem from a multi disciplinary perspective.

Wednesday, April 28

More on the scandal of the European Union Accounts Fraud and Incompetence

I got this email from a list. This level of incompetence and fraud is shocking, and to think that they are doing this with our money. Bleah.

 
Subject: Re: EU audit
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 10:46:10 +0100
Perhaps I can clarify things a little...
The only part of the EU's spending which is audited and signed off
is the part handled directly by the Commission, and that includes
the cost of the European Parliament. It accounts for less than 10%
of the total.
All the rest comes under what is absurdly known as "shared
management", on which I have waxed lyrical more than once in years
past. Effectively, the EU decides to give money for a project in a
member state or in a candidate country and then expects that
country's government to account for it properly, having added an
agreed percentage to the total cost of whatever is being
funded. (Example, Greece, whose application for subsidies for its
olive groves covers such a large land mass that it can only mean
that olives are grown in the middle of Athens and in the Aegean
Sea. Everybody in Brussels knows it is a scam and they have never
done anything to stop it.)
The Court of Auditors, another poodle of the EU and made up of
appointees from the member states (many of whom are not qualified
accountants, by the way), then supposedly checks on the information
provided, sends staff to a handful of locations to verify the
"facts", and then decides there are too many errors and
unsubstantiated sets of accounts for them to sign off the whole lot.
Added to which, when the EU switched from single-entry book-keeping
to double-entry in 2005 they were unable to agree the closing
balances on the existing accounts, which meant that there were no
opening balances under the new system!
So, in reality, they can NEVER sign off the accounts because they
never knew where they were starting from.
Hope that helps
Ashley Mote
(MEP 2004-2009, and member of the EP's Budget Control Committee
throughout that time)
PS: Double-entry book-keeping was the invention of an Italian monk
some 1500 years ago. Quite why it took the EU until 2005 to catch
up has never been explained.

Monday, February 16

No signoff on the EU accounts yet again

So this year again, the Netherlands government is refusing to sign off on the EU Accounts. I quote:

Finance Minister Wouter Bos has announced the Netherlands will vote against the annual financial statement of the European Union for 2007. He made his statement after a meeting of European finance ministers.
For the 14th time, the EU accounting office reports that many billions of euros in expenses have not been properly accounted for. Mr Bos says that the Dutch parliament would never accept such a statement from a finance minister, and that the Netherlands will therefore vote against.
The Netherlands is once again the only country to reject the EU financial statement. Mr Bos says an increasing number of countries agree with the Netherlands, but fear being punished financially should they vote against the statement.

I have complained about this before. But nothing happens. The European Union, in its estimable undemocratic way, keeps on going ahead, spraying my tax dollars on weird and wonderful initiatives, with no proper accounting for the funds. The Netherlands seems to be the only country which has a set of proper balls for proper accounting and treatment of their funds.

Now I wonder why the British Government does not follow suit? Oh! sorry, I forgot that the British Politicians are equally venal as the EU bureaucrats, and would prefer to keep their expenses secret. Welcome to the land of corruption. And dont tell me that we are cleaner than Nigeria or Bangladesh. We are NOT a third world country, we live in a trust society and in return for my tax dollars, you are to be open and transparent in your spending which you are doing on MY behalf. If you are incompetent, then you need to be fired and if corrupt, exposed. Is there anybody else besides the Dutch who would be brave enough to hold these EU incompetent gits to account?


Quote of the day:
Many would be cowards if they had courage enough. - Thomas Fuller

Saturday, June 14

Evidence that Europe is elitist or mad

I have to admit that I did a little hop skip and jump when I passed a TV screen yesterday showing that the Irish had rejected the poxy EU Constitution. So, the bald facts are

1. The EU Reform treaty is rejected by Irish voters and by the rules of the EU, the entire treaty is now rejected.

So the people have spoken. And what do our people's representatives do? They persist in doing the SAME things that have lead people to reject the EU in its current shape. This qualifies them at best to be insane or at worst, to be corrupt, elitist, autocratic morons who are basically out of touch with the common man. See the BBC report here. And its basically across the continent. Here:

France and Germany have described the No vote in the referendum as a serious blow but have urged the EU to press ahead with the project.

So the people said no, but the leaders say yes, and lets just ignore what the people said, yes? Pesky people, who cares about those little people, no?

FRANK-WALTER STEINMEIER, GERMAN FOREIGN MINISTER

Naturally we are disappointed, it is a hard blow. Nevertheless, I am convinced that we need this treaty. Therefore we are sticking with our goal for it to come into force. The ratification process must continue.

HE believes it so it must go on, sod the people.

 

But here's the EC Head, Barroso who comes across as frankly a bit stupid. He says that the treaty is not dead. No? Its not dead? Really? Its as dead as the Norwegian blue parrot. The treaty is not going anywhere now. So the head of the EC says basically stupid things. I would have called him a liar, but stupid people's utterances are not lies, lies impute a degree of intelligence and motivation.

Then we have our little liar in our midst.

DAVID MILIBAND, UK FOREIGN SECRETARY

The Irish government have made clear they believe it's right for countries like Britain to continue the ratification process because there needs to be a British view as well as an Irish view... So I believe it's right that we continue with our own process and take up the Irish offer of further discussions about the next steps forward.

Did you notice that there was nothing in his statement about what the British people want? Of course, the British people do not want him and his lot anyway. So he is perhaps the foreign minister of one of the most unpopular governments in the recent times. Again, an elitist view of the world. Governments and elites talk to each other and decide for me, eh? Mr. Miliband, some people thought of you as a potential Prime Minister. Well, Sir, you are not. The British View is what the people say, not what you say. And if you say that your view is what the people want, lets put it to the test, shall we? When did I vote or say yes to this treaty? Oh! but I CAN CALL YOU A LIAR because YOU PROMISED in your manifesto for a referendum and then withdrew. Your frankly stupid protestations notwithstanding, you are basically a liar.

Thank you, Irish! As for the EU, remember the Danish referendum in 1992 and 2000? the Swedish rejection of the Euro? the French and Dutch rejections? And the previous Irish rejection? Here's an idea, try to look up what the word "rejecting" means in the bloody dictionary, you twits. I quote:

  • To refuse to accept, submit to, believe, or make use of.
  • To refuse to consider or grant; deny.
  • To refuse to recognize or give affection to (a person).
  • To discard as defective or useless; throw away.
  • To spit out or vomit.

 

Wednesday, April 30

Freedom of information case opens up EU files

Hear hear. Finally we might hope for more clarity and transparency from that secretive undemocratic set of organisations which belong to the European Union. Spending, deliberations, minutes, agreements, reports, all are generally hidden away. After all, we are mushrooms. But this is a good step. I quote:

 

The European Union's secretive lawmaking will be opened to more public scrutiny under proposals to overhaul freedom-of-information laws due to be unveiled on Wednesday.

The European Commission wants to update its rules after losing a series of court cases last year when it refused to hand over documents to journalists, activists and companies.

The reworked regime would take account of this case law. Crucially, national governments would no longer have an automatic veto over the release of correspondence with EU bodies. The names of lobbyists who meet EU commissioners, parliamentarians and officials would also be disclosed routinely for the first time.

Technorati Tags: ,

Wednesday, April 23

Our MEP's are basically common thieves, throw them out.

So the Members of the European Parliament are thieves, eh? they are stealing from me? my tax dollars, yes? up to an amount of £125 million per year. And then they want me to be happy towards these European institutions? Yes, of course, hang a stupid board on my back and welcome to my wallet.

All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!!!

Tuesday, March 4

MEPs reject EU move to publish expenses

Now why am I not surprised. You are actually asking turkeys to vote for christmas? what do you expect them to say? Asking MEP's to be transparent about their pig in the snout behaviour is frankly silly. They would not do it willy nilly. See the numbers:

And what data protection concerns? what about protection of my money which you are spending, you useless morons?

All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!!!